Under a unitary executive, is it even possible for a president to 'retaliate' against his staff by firing them? They serve at his pleasure.
If they aren't carrying out his policies and have given the executive reason to think they're opposing or undermining him, then they serve zero purpose in that job.
What's did people want, for Vindman to keep collecting a paycheck for an NSC role where he's shut out of all process, his advice completely ignored and holds no responsibilities? Is that really an acceptable status quo, for someone to exist in a no-show job solely because firing them would be labeled "retaliation" by his opponents? In any sensible administration, if you oppose the president so much you refuse to do your job, you resign, you don't undermine. And there have been no shortage of Trump officials who resigned because they had policy disagreements with Trump. Bolton, Mattis, Spencer, etc etc- when they refused to comply, when they felt they could not continue to serve while not getting what they wanted, they left. Either resigned, or asked to resign. Vindman & Co decided to undermine the administration from within, both by leaking, conspiring with democrats and coordinating an impeachment push. There were certainly other leakers who didn't get their way, who got the boot- or arrested.

Now Vindman is going off to the naval academy where he can either slink into a job outside the administration or just fast track his way to retirement. I don't see how that's a bad outcome for him. Its a lot more sensible than keeping him around.

On top, Vindman violated the chain of command by sharing his complaints about Trump's allegedly criminal behavior with the press and Democrats instead of reporting it to his supervisor.

His stiffs his contractors too and people make excuses for him. He has a long standing pattern of behavior of abusing subordinates. Look at how the Republican party has to kiss his a**.

lol at the trump cult trying to spin trump's petty revenge on people, who had the audacity to tell the truth, as 'reasonable'.

that sondland bloke donated a million dollars to trump's campaign to get his position in the first place, and then was a willing participant to trump's shady and illegal ukraine dealings. also, why fire vindman's twin brother, who had absolutely nothing to do with this?

this shit is indefensible by any reasonable standard, yet our resident trump cucks are engaging in olympic level mental gymnastics, trying to fool people (themselves mostly) into believing this is 'fine'.

_________________________________________________________________



and i have explained to you multiple times that's an outright ridiculous talking point:

Wrong, it's you and your lot who engage in mental gymnastics to make a scandal out of an event which is commonplace in all companies, in the military, and all other areas of politics: an employee's job was to enact and assist the things his boss decided on, but he 1. tried to undermine it, 2. broke the chain of command and 3. abused the trust put in him when he leaked his disagreements with his bosses actions to the press and his bosses opponents, and 4. there exists an unambiguous public record for all of this.

Oh yeah, one more thing: Vindman is an employee of the Pentagon who was assigned to the NSC. Trump did not fire him from his actual job, Vindman remains a Pentagon employee. The only thing that ended was his position on the NSC - a position in which he served at the sole discretion of the president and to which there exists no entitlement whatsoever.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Feb 8 2020 12:50am

notice how you completely ignored sondland and vindman's twin brother in your deluded little rationalisation? also, how your narrative is shifting from 'this is totally justified and normal' to 'it's legal for trump to do this' (which i never contested btw, i'm just pointing out how this is obviously just a petty and insecure little draft dodger excacting revenge)...

cultists gonna cult...

What strikes me time and time and time again with every Trump scandal, is this juxtaposition that during the Obama years, the grievance was that the executive was usurping the powers of the other branches and acting unilaterally, 'King Obama'. That Obama was expanding executive powers to circumvent congress and even the judiciary, ruling by fiat. That the executive branch was taking over the other branches. Against the current outrage during the Trump years, where the grievance is that the executive is taking over itself! The big scandal is that Trump has been exercising the power of the executive, with democrats objecting even to insular process. That Trump isn't allowed to control his own staff, he isn't allowed to exercise his diplomatic powers, his very intent is to be questioned and he's not entitled to decide the contents of his own mind. When Obama usurped the power of the purse to create an appropriation for his healthcare out of thin air without congressional approval, in blatant disregard for the constitution, that was a-ok. But when Trump fires someone who serves at the pleasure of the president, democrats are unironically talking about a second impeachment.

That's because most of the left equate themselves to the fenders and saucis in this forum. Sadly their too ignorant to see their own bias.

lol, acting like that part wasn't ALSO true for emperor bonespur, and to a much larger degree even. ruling by executive orders, ignoring and defying congress on a regular basis, shutting down the government over a failing campaign promise...

also, don't act like there isn't a difference between making reasonable use of your powers in order to serve the country, or doing so in order to serve your personal and corrupt goals (like when he removed yovanovich). the hoops you people are willing to jump through in order to delude yourselves...

cultists gonna cult...



the irony. i always laugh when people try to insult others and fail so hard...

This post was edited by fender on Feb 8 2020 03:09am

you lost pal, time to move on